4.7 Article

Response of chondrocytes to shear stress: antagonistic effects of the binding partners Toll-like receptor 4 and caveolin-1

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 3401-3415

出版社

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1096/fj.11-184861

关键词

interleukin-6; mPGES-1; L-PGDS

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [RO1 AR053358]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoarthritis (OA) is often a consequence of excessive mechanical loading of cartilage, which produces hydrostatic stress, tensile strain, and fluid flow. Application of high fluid shear to chondrocytes recapitulates the earmarks of OA, as evidenced by the induction of cyclooxygenase-2, prostaglandins (PGs), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Here, we delineated the signaling pathway by which high fluid shear mediates the temporal regulation of IL-6 synthesis in human chondrocytes. We determined that Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and caveolin-1 are binding partners in chondrocytes. Their expression is temporally regulated by fluid shear via the sequential up-regulation of microsomal PGE synthase-1 (mPGES-1) and L-PGDS. High shear stress rapidly induces an 8-fold up-regulation of TLR4 expression via an mPGES-1-dependent pathway, whereas prolonged shear exposure concurrently down-regulates TLR4 by >4-fold and up-regulates caveolin-1 expression by > 2.5-fold in an L-PGDS-dependent manner. TLR4 and caveolin-1 exert opposing effects on the activation of ERK1/2, PI3-K and PKA signaling pathways, which, in turn, regulate the NF-kappa B-dependent IL-6 synthesis in a time-dependent fashion. Reconstructing the signaling network regulating shear-induced IL-6 expression in chondrocytes may provide insights for developing therapeutic strategies to combat osteoarthritis.-Wang, P., Zhu, F., Tong, Z., Konstantopoulos, K. Response of chondrocytes to shear stress: antagonistic effects of the binding partners Toll-like receptor 4 and caveolin-1. FASEB J. 25, 3401-3415 (2011). www.fasebj.org

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据